Category Archives: environmentalism

Barack Obama’s Energy Policies – Please note that his Energy Policies and His Climate Policies are on one page

Posted on by
1

John McCain just does not get it. The Energy situation we are in and the Climate situation we are in are one and the same thing. For now let me say that in debate and in arguementation, when someone lists every possible answer they can think of, I think that they don’t know what they are talking about. That was John McCain’s approach. Obama’s policies are brief, pointed and focused.

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

     

  • Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
  • Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
  • Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
  • Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
  • Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

ENERGY PLAN OVERVIEW:

Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.

Learn More…
 

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

Learn More…
 

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Learn More…
 

:}
Please go to the site and look at the videos. They are very cool.
:}

John McCain’s Climate Change Policy – Please note there is no mention of Kyoto

Posted on by
Reply

Or for that matter any supporting evidence. Also note that he has 2 seperate policies, 1 for energy and 1 for climate change. Like the 2 have nothing to do with each other. Thus carbon is a problem twice. Also realize that cap and trade is an industry creation with the neoconservationists or collaboraters, thus suspect from the beginning.

Climate Change John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy. He will work with our international partners to secure our energy future, to create opportunities for American industry, and to leave a better future for our children.John McCain’s Principles for Climate Policy
  • Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables.
  • Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System.
  • Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets.
  • Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.
  • Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.


John McCain’s Cap and Trade PolicyJohn McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work?A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables

2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

The Cap And Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions.

The cap and trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business – sectors responsible for just below 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase “offsets” – financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture – to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.Innovating, Developing and Deploying TechnologiesTo Support The Cap And Trade System, John McCain Will Promote The Innovation, Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technologies. John McCain will reform federal government research funding and infrastructure to support the cap and trade emissions reduction goals and emphasize the commercialization of low-carbon technologies. Under John McCain’s plan:

Emissions Permits Will Eventually Be Auctioned To Support The Development Of Advanced Technologies. A portion of the process of these auctions will be used to support a diversified portfolio of research and commercialization challenges, ranging from carbon capture and sequestration, to nuclear power, to battery development. Funds will also be used to provide financial backing for a Green Innovation Financing and Transfer (GIFT) to facilitate commercialization.John McCain Will Streamline The Process For Deploying New Technologies And Requiring More Accountability From Government Programs To Meet Commercialization Goals And Deadlines.John McCain Will Ensure Rapid Technology Introduction, Quickly Shifting Research From The Laboratory To The Marketplace.

John McCain Will Employ The Inherent Incentives Provided By A Cap-And-Trade System Along With Government-Led Competitions As Incentives For New Technology Deployment.

John McCain Will Foster Rapid and Clean Economic Growth

John McCain Believes An Effective And Sustainable Climate Policy Must Also Support Rapid Economic Growth. John McCain will use a portion of auction proceeds to reduce impacts on low-income American families. The McCain plan will accomplish this in part by incorporating measures to mitigate any economic cost of meeting emission targets, including:

Trading Emission Permits To Find The Lowest-Cost Source Of Emission Reductions.Permitting “Banking” And “Borrowing” Of Permits So That Emission Reductions May Be Accelerated Or Deferred To More Economically Efficient Periods.Permitting Unlimited Initial Offsets From Both Domestic And International Sources.

Effectively Integrating U.S. Trading With Other International Markets, Thereby Providing Access To Low-Cost Permit Sources.

Establishing A Strategic Carbon Reserve As A National Source Of Permits During Periods Of Economic Duress.

Early Allocation Of Some Emission Permits On Sound Principles. This will provide significant amount of allowances for auctioning to provide funding for transition assistance for consumers and industry. It will also directly allocate sufficient permits to enable the activities of a Climate Change Credit Corporation, the public-private agency that will oversee the cap and trade program, provide credit to entities for reductions made before 2012, and ease transition for industry with competitiveness concerns and fewer efficiency technology options.

A commission will also be convened to provide recommendations on the percentage of allowances to be provided for free and the percentage of allowances to be auctioned, and develop a schedule for transition from allocated to maximum auctioned allowances. Cap-and-trade system will also work to maximize the amount of allowances that are auctioned off by 2050. John McCain Will Provide Leadership for Effective International Efforts John McCain Believes That There Must Be A Global Solution To Global Climate Change. John McCain will engage the international community in a coordinated effort by:Actively Engaging To Lead United Nations Negotiations.Permitting America To Lead In Innovation, Capture The Market On Low-Carbon Energy Production, And Export To Developing Countries – Including Government Incentives And Partnerships For Sales Of Clean Tech To Developing Countries.Provide Incentives For Rapid Participation By India And China, While Negotiating An Agreement With Each.

John McCain Will Develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan John McCain Believes A Comprehensive Approach To Addressing Climate Change Includes Adaptation As Well As Mitigation. He believes: An Adaptation Plan Should Be Based Upon National And Regional Scientific Assessments Of The Impacts Of Climate Change.An Adaptation Plan Should Focus On Implementation At The Local Level Which Is Where Impacts Will Manifest Themselves.A Comprehensive Plan Will Address The Full Range Of Issues: Infrastructure, Ecosystems, Resource Planning, And Emergency Preparation.
 
On The Issues• The Economy
• Health Care
• National Security
• Education
• Iraq
• Climate Change
• Veterans
• Immigration
• Values
• Second Amendment
• Judicial Philosophy
• Ethics Reform
• Natural Heritage
• Space Program



John McCain has a remarkable record of leadership and experience that embodies his unwavering lifetime commitment to service.Read More 



Learn More About John McCain’s Climate Change Plan. Read More

The Down Side To Wind – It’s not like passing gas

Posted on by
Reply

OK so it is Friday and I miss Weird Bird Friday.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080924-pf-wind-energy.html

5 Myths About Wind Energy

By Michael Schirber

Wind energy might be the simplest renewable energy to understand. Yet there are misconceptions about what makes the wind industry turn.

The United States now has nearly 17,000 megawatts of wind power installed, which can supply about 1.2 percent of the nation’s demand for electricity, according to a recent report from the Department of Energy (DOE).

With these numbers projected to grow in the coming years, it might be good to be aware of a few myths that are blowing in the wind.

1. Wind is cheap

No one owns the wind, so it might seem like wind energy should cost less than other technologies that require costly fuel, such as coal or natural gas, to operate.

However, the initial investment for wind energy is high.

2. America is way behind the rest of the world

Denmark gets 20 percent of its energy from wind. Germany has the most wind turbines of any country. China is set to nearly double its wind energy capacity in just one year.

3. Wind turbines are loud

Wind turbines used to be loud, but newer designs are less so.

4. Wind turbines kill birds

This one is actually true, but the problem is not as bad as some people claim.

The impression that all turbines are dangerous to birds comes from Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in California. This was one of the first big wind farms, and unfortunately it was placed in a migratory bird pathway, Moriarty said.

5. Any house can own a windmill

Unless you have a good chunk of land around your house, it’s probably not a good idea to get a wind turbine. If it’s too close to buildings or trees, the wind will be turbulent and won’t produce the power that it’s supposed to.

:}

And if you think that isn’t enough Myths well hell:

http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

Wind Energy

Top Myths About Wind Energy

Many people make many claims about wind turbines and the effects that they allegedly have. We’ve collated our favourites and given the answers.

  1. Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the British countryside
    Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is currently the most cost effective renewable energy technology in a position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK’s electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore.
  2. Myth: Wind farms won’t help climate change
    Fact: Wind power is a clean, renewable source of energy which produces no greenhouse gas emissions or waste products. The UK currently emits 560 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the key greenhouse gas culprit, every year and the Government target is to cut this by 60% by 20501. Power stations are the largest contributor to carbon emissions, producing 170 million tonnes of CO2 each year2. We need to switch to forms of energy that do not produce CO2. Just one modern wind turbine will save over 4,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually3.
  3. Myth: Building a wind farm takes more energy than it ever makes
    Fact: The average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation4. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for more than 20 years and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental costs. Wind energy is a form of development which is essentially reversible – in contrast to fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.
  4. Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
    Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%5 . A modern wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the course of a year.
  5. Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work
    Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK’s transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation’s workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.
    Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation’s electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6. In fact, this is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20% of total electricity supply.
  6. Myth: Installing wind farms will never shut down power stations
    Fact: The simple fact is that power plants in the UK are being shut down, either through European legislation on emissions or sheer old age. We need to act now to find replacement power sources: wind is an abundant resource, indigenous to the UK and therefore has a vital role to play in the new energy portfolio.
  7. Myth: Wind power is expensive
    Fact: The cost of generating electricity from wind has fallen dramatically over the past few years. Between 1990 and 2002, world wind energy capacity doubled every three years and with every doubling prices fell by 15%7. Wind energy is competitive with new coal and new nuclear capacity, even before any environmental costs of fossil fuel and nuclear generation8 are taken into account. The average cost of generating electricity from onshore wind is now around 3-4p per kilowatt hour, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p)9. As gas prices increase and wind power costs fall – both of which are very likely – wind becomes even more competitive, so much so that some time after 2010 wind should challenge gas as the lowest cost power source.
    Furthermore, the wind is a free and widely available fuel source, therefore once the wind farm is in place, there are no fuel or waste related costs.
  8. Myth: The UK should invest in other renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency instead of wind power
    Fact: Wind energy’s role in combating climate change is not a matter of either/or. The UK will need a mix of new and existing renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures, and as quickly as possible. Significant amounts of investment have been allocated for wave and tidal energy development, and these technologies, along with solar and biomass energy, will have an important role in the UK’s future energy mix. However, wind energy is the most cost effective renewable energy technology available to generate clean electricity and help combat climate change right now. Furthermore, developing a strong wind industry will facilitate other renewable technologies which have not reached commercialisation yet, accumulating valuable experience in dealing with issues such as grid connection, supply chain and finance.
  9. Myth: Wind farms should all be put out at sea
    Fact: We will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to meet the UK’s challenging targets on climate change. At present, onshore wind is more economical than development offshore. However, more offshore wind farms are now under construction, with the first of the large-scale projects operational at the end of 2003, and prices will fall as the industry gains more experience. Furthermore, offshore wind farms take longer to develop, as the sea is inherently a more hostile environment. To expect offshore to be the only form of wind generation allowed would therefore be to condemn us to missing our renewable energy targets and commitment to tackle climate change.
  10. Myth: Wind farms are ugly and unpopular
    Fact: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and whether you think a wind turbine is attractive or not will always be your personal opinion. However, studies regularly show that most people find turbines an interesting feature of the landscape10. On average 80% of the public support wind energy, less than 10% are against it, with the remainder undecided. Surveys conducted since the early 1990’s across the country near existing wind farms have consistently found that most people are in favour of wind energy , with support increasing among those living closer to the wind farms.
  11. Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
    Fact: There is no evidence to suggest this. The UK’s first commercial wind farm at Delabole received 350,000 visitors in its first ten years of operation, while 10,000 visitors a year come to take the turbine tour at the EcoTech Centre in Swaffham, Norfolk. A MORI poll in Scotland showed that 80% of tourists would be interested in visiting a wind farm. Wind farm developers are often asked to provide visitor centres, viewing platforms and rights of way to their sites.
  12. Myth: Wind farms harm property prices
    Fact: There is currently no evidence in the UK showing that wind farms impact house prices. However, there is evidence following a comprehensive study by the Scottish Executive that those living nearest to wind farms are their strongest advocates12.
  13. Myth: Wind farms kill birds
    Fact: The RSPB stated in its 2004 information leaflet Wind farms and birds13, that “in the UK, we have not so far witnessed any major adverse effects on birds associated with wind farms“. Wind farms are always subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and BWEA members follow the industry’s Best Practice Guidelines and work closely with organisations such as English Nature and the RSPB to ensure that wind farm design and layout does not interfere with sensitive species or wildlife designated sites. Moreover, a recent report published in the journal Nature confirmed that the greatest threat to bird populations in the UK is climate change14.
  14. Myth: Wind farms are dangerous to humans
    Fact: Wind energy is a benign technology with no associated emissions, harmful pollutants or waste products. In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the world15, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind turbines. In response to recent unscientific accusations that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects16, says: “I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines. To say that there is an infrasound problem is one of the hares which objectors to wind farms like to run. There will not be any effects from infrasound from the turbines.”
  15. Myth: Wind farms are noisy
    Fact: The evolution of wind farm technology over the past decade has rendered mechanical noise from turbines almost undetectable with the main sound being the aerodynamic swoosh of the blades passing the tower. There are strict guidelines on wind turbines and noise emissions to ensure the protection of residential amenity. These are contained in the scientifically informed ETSU Working Group guidelines 199617 and must be followed by wind farm developers, as referenced in national planning policy for renewables18. The best advice for any doubter is to go and hear for yourself!

:}

THERE ARE JUST SOOOO MANY MYTHS – STELLA STELLA ok so there really only is a lot of talk sigh…

 http://www.wind.appstate.edu/windpower/myths.php

Dispelling Common Myths

about Wind Power

Compiled by the Wind Working Group

Myth #1: Wind turbines are unusually harmful to birds.

Although birds do infrequently collide with turbines, wind energy poses less of a threat to birds than many other commonplace structures. In fact, the National Audubon Society has stated that it supports the development and use of wind power. Based on numerous studies that have taken place in  New York, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Wyoming, Minnesota, and California, collision with turbines result in 1-2 bird deaths or less per turbine per year. For comparison, each year at least 60 million birds die in collisions with vehicles; at least 98 million in collisions with buildings and windows; and at least 4 million in collisions with communication towers. Important consideration should be given to placement of wind turbines to ensure that turbines are not located along migratory bird flight paths or the flight paths of threatened or rare species.
Consider the alternatives; bird deaths that result from fossil energy based power production:

  • Tall smokestacks- A study at a single Florida coal fired power plant with four smokestacks recorded an estimated 3,000 bird kills in a single night during a fall migration.
  • Oil spills at sea – In a single oil shipping accident, – the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound – more than 500,000 migratory birds perished, or about 1,000 times the estimated annual total in California’s wind power plants.
  • Additional threats to birds from other energy sources include: mercury emissions from coal fired power plants; global climate change resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels; acid rain resulting from coal fired power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx and; destruction of habitat as a result of mining activities associated with the coal, gas, oil and uranium industries.

Myth #2: Wind turbines are noisy.

Today’s large wind turbines make less noise (about 45 decibels-dB) than the background noise you hear in your own home (50 dB)! According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), today an operating wind farm at a distance of about 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.

Myth #3: Many wind turbines are necessary for minimal power generation.

Improved technology has enabled far fewer turbines to produce more electricity. The standard output of a turbine grew from .5 mW in 1995 to 1.5 mW in 2003.

Myth #4: Wind turbines are unattractive

In North Carolina, a study to determine public attitudes towards wind energy was recently conducted. The study found that 77.1% of participants who had seen first hand a utility scale turbine said that they liked its appearance. Studies from numerous US states and other countries report that a majority of people think wind turbines are graceful, elegant structures. Many people find turbines to be interesting features in the landscape, enhancing the vista overall. In the UK, the British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit attractions.

Myth #5: Conventional power sources are less unsightly and environmentally harmful than wind turbines.

Wind turbines cause little damage to the surrounding environments beyond the footprint of the facility and transmissions system and are much less unsightly than conventional power sources.

For comparison, consider the following:

  • Conventional power sources require acres and acres of land for unsightly power plants that spew pollutants from smokestacks. In addition to the electric generating facility itself, the plants also require on-site fuel storage facilities and access to cooling water, both of which require additional land.
  • Construction of hydropower dams floods riverside lands, permanently eliminating riparian and upland habitat.
  • Most generating facilities also produce solid waste by-products of combustion that can be toxic. Solid wastes from power plants are typically dumped into a landfill, another way in which a generating facility impacts land as it extends its environmental footprint beyond the boundaries of the power plant site.
  • Mountain top removal strip mining – the process of blasting off entire mountaintops in order to extract thin seams of coal – can strip up to 10 square miles and dump hundreds of millions of waste into as many as 12 valley fills that can be 1,000 feet wide and 1 mile long.
  • Conventional power sources rely on the combustion of fossil fuels which are largely responsible for the 78% decrease in visibility from natural levels that has occurred in the southern Appalachian Mountains. In the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, summertime visibility averages only 16 miles, and on many days air pollution reduces the visibility range to less than 5 miles. In this case, one might prefer to see a few turbines on top of a mountain than not be able to see the mountains at all.

Myth #6: Wind power will destroy mountain vistas.

Placement of wind turbines should be restricted so as to not detract from places of important scenic beauty. Potential areas that should be excluded from turbine placement consideration are:

  • National Parks
  • State Parks
  • National Forest lands
  • View shed buffers along the Appalachian Trail
  • View shed buffer zones along the Blue Ridge Parkway
  • Spruce-Fir Forest lands ( one of the most unique and endangered ecosystems in the Appalachian region)

Wind turbines should be located where there are:

  • Existing communication towers
  • Existing transmission lines
  • Other forms of existing structures

Myth #7: Wind power will decrease property values in surrounding areas.

Views of wind turbines will not negatively impact property values. A recent study on the economic impacts of wind power states that, “based on a nation-wide survey conducted of tax assessors in other areas with wind power projects, we found no evidence supporting the claim that views of wind farms decrease property values.” Other studies, conducted in both the US and abroad, have made similar findings.

Myth #8: Wind Energy will negatively affect tourism.

Large turbines have been found more often to be a positive influence on tourism. The British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms in the UK are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit them. In Australia, the wind farms are highlighted as one of the attractions for visitors amongst other historical and scenic points of interest. A Scottish study found that nine out of ten tourists visiting some of Scotland’s top beauty spots say the presence of wind farms makes no difference to the enjoyment of their holiday, and twice as many people would return to an area because of the presence of a wind farm than would stay away. Yet another survey of more than 300 visitors to Argyll, Scotland found that 91% of visitors said the presence of wind farms in the area made no difference to whether they would return.

Myth #9: North Carolinians don’t support wind power.

North Carolinians are in favor of developing wind power in our state. A recent study on public attitudes towards wind power in Western North Carolina found that Western North Carolinians are favorably disposed toward the development of a wind energy industry in the Appalachian Mountains. They want more of their future electricity derived from renewable sources and less from fossil fuels. The study also found that, by over 2 to 1, western North Carolinians do not believe that ridge top turbines should be prohibited. 3 out of 4 study participants feel that if a ridge top already has existing cell towers, they would not mind adding a wind turbine to the clutter. An even higher ratio believes a person should be allowed to erect a turbine on his/her own property for residential use.

References and Contact Info

This fact sheet was prepared by the North Carolina Wind Energy Working Group, February 2003. For more information contact: Amber Lynn Munger (828) 216 2362 or Michael Shore (828) 254 7359

1“Facts about Wind Energy and Birds,” American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WEandBirds.pdf
2 “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States.” National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Research Document, 2001. http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf
3 “Facts about Wind Energy and Birds,” American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WEandBirds.pdf
4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Wind Power Market Update, Feb 2003 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/wpa/wpa_update.pdf
5 Grady, D., “Public Attitudes Toward Wind Energy in Western North Carolina: A Systematic Survey.” 2002.
16 From powerscorecard.org: http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=7
7 “Blueprint for Breathing Easier; Southeast Strategy for Clean Air,” Environmental Defense, 2002. http://www.cleanenergy.org/air/breathingeasier.pdf
8 Grover, S. for EcoNorthwest, “Economic Impacts of Wind Power in Kittitas County.” Portland, OR, 2002.
9 View this study at: http://www.bwea.com/pdf/mori_briefing.pdf
10 Grady, D., “Public Attitudes Toward Wind Energy in Western North Carolina: A Systematic Survey.” 2002.

:}:} 

Fast Super Efficient Houses – Why is America so far behind?

Posted on by
1

This is at one time really cool, a really cool site and depressing if you live in the heart of the energy hog.

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/09/12/sustainable-homes-from-easy-domes/

easydomes2.jpg

:} I can’t say enough about this publication. Its great! :}

 Echoing the structures of Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic Domes, Danish Architect Kári Thomsen and Engineer Ole Vanggaard have created Easy Domes, a series of quick assembly, low-energy homes! Following the success of the first Easy Dome home built in 1992 for the Greenland Society on The Faroe Islands, a number of dome-shaped cottages were erected as tourist getaways. Since then, the buildings have been put into production and delivery of these fabulous prefab buildings was initiated early this summer!

The unique shape of the Easy Dome, called an icosahedron, is designed to optimize the amount of interior space inside each home. Made up of several hexagonal pieced together, the dome hosts a wealth of interior nooks and crannies, making it stand out from other prefab home designs.

The dome offers individuals the opportunity to build their own high quality homes, coming with pre-built wooden sections, ready to assemble on either a concrete or timber plinth. Once on site, the dome houses take only one day to raise and seal, and for domes less than 500 square feet, no crane is needed to complete construction. The load construction is extremely strong and built for extreme weather, including wind speeds of 200 mph with one meter of wet snow on the roof.

The completed two-floor homes come with living room, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms and are constructed using only sustainable and recycled materials. The exterior is covered with non-toxic impregnated pinewood, and the roof is covered with grass. The construction is ventilated on the exterior and insulated with wood-wool or flax, with fiber gypsum to cover all installations and cables. The floor is made up of a plate of reinforced concrete with pressure-resistant insulation and vitrified gravel underneath. Laying on top of the concrete are insulation and floorboards. Furthermore, each home is installed with solar panels and a brick stove, both of which are thermostat-controlled and connected to a water tank. Other renewable energy systems are also available

With a minimum use of materials, the domes are sustainable, energy efficient, spacious and cost-efficient. There is also the potential to erect two or three domes together.

 :}

You can find much more at their site:

 http://www.easydomes.com/

easydomes1.jpg 

The Easy Domes concept sets up for advantages in a very quick and easy assembling and raising of the building and its finish. On a concrete or timber basic it takes one day to raise and seal the construction which is made of quality plywood and 3×4? to 3×6″ timber in pinewood.

All sections are premade and ready to assemble with bolts and nuts and the sealing of the edges with asphaltpaper or rubber. The climate shelter and finish out – and inside are also precutted plates / sections ready for mounting.

Floor, partition walls and windows and doors are offered as the house by this becomes ready for kitchen, bathroom, furniture, lamps and other installations done by the dome owner.

The Easy Domes products are certified and of high quality and precision made materials fullfilling  international building rules and standards.  Transport is easy in container  and no crane is needed to erect buildings untill the 50 sq.ft. domes.

As domes are geometrical structures optimized on loads and climate conditions – with a minimum use of materials –  advantages are reached in a sustainable, energy efficient and  spatial building on a very suitable cost level.

The Orion Project – Brilliant or silly?

Posted on by
Reply

What does it matter? At least they are trying.

:}

http://www.theorionproject.org/en/index.html

lead_nebula.jpg

Our Vision and Purpose

The Orion Project is a non-profit foundation created to transform the current energy, environmental and social crisis into a world of sustainability and Enlightened Abundance.

Technological progress in the areas of advanced physics and electromagnetic systems, if appropriately supported, will enable humanity to live on the Earth with a minimal footprint with genuine long-term sustainability.

For over 100 years, these advanced concepts in energy generation have either been ignored or actively suppressed due to the power of fossil-fuel based economic and industrial interests.

Imagine a world where every home and village has its own clean source of electrical energy, free from the cost of fossil fuels, nuclear power or a centralized electric grid.

Imagine every means of transportation running off of clean power plants, using no source of fuel and creating no pollution.

Imagine the developing world blossoming with these new technologies and the equatorial rain forests protected from slash and burn subsistence farming and logging.

Imagine all inter-city transportation above the ground and the millions of acres paved over with highways freed for productive agriculture and recreation.

Imagine all manufacturing being clean-fuel sourced, using no-cost or low-cost energy.

Imagine the possibility of 100% recycling because the energy cost of transporting recycled materials, processing them and scrubbing pollution out of the air and water approaches zero.

Imagine…

This is no mere pipe-dream, but a world that is well within our grasp to create- in our lifetimes. Imagine… and see that it is a reality.

The Orion Project is dedicated to:

  • Supporting the world’s most accomplished engineers, physicists, and inventors who have developed innovative solutions to energy generation.
  • Cleaning up the fossil fuel power sources currently in use.

How You Can Help:

The Orion Project urgently needs your help. Nothing short of a global, peaceful Manhattan Project can reverse the growing crisis of energy resource depletion, environmental collapse, global warming and geo-political conflict created by our current dependence on oil, gas and nuclear technology.

The technologies outlined on our website – in addition to solar and wind – provide our best hope for attaining true sustainability, peace and Enlightened Abundance for all of humanity.

Please make a donation to The Orion Project to support our Technology Development Program and to see that these emerging sciences are disclosed and implemented globally as soon as possible.

Our immediate goal is to raise a minimum of $3 million from individuals like you and from foundations and corporations concerned about the looming environmental and energy crisis. This sum will enable us to substantially support the research and development of the technologies outlined on our site through our Breakthrough Campaign.

Volunteer your skills to help The Orion Project meet its goals. We have a need for volunteers with a variety of skillsets, and this list will continue to grow as the project gathers momentum.

The future of our planet and of human civilization depends on wise, courageous and bold leadership and innovation. Will you join us?

:}

They got cool pictures too and you know how we like that.

Green Transportation Conference – Who knew?

Posted on by
1

Actually todays post is the result of the Feeling Lucky button  at Google. Even though this conference happened in the Bay Area on the Left Coast over 4 months ago. It still qualifies as a real cool site and a real cool idea.

http://greentransportation2008.com/

Green Transportation 2008

Choices for The Future

 Click here to see photos of the April 12, 2008 event!

Want to see the latest alternatives for getting around? Join us Saturday, April 12 for a day of education and entertainment. Featuring major manufacturers, innovators and nonprofits, all on one site.

Hosted by the Green Building Exchange in collaboration with Green Seed Radio (KTRB AM860).

Hosted by the Green Building Exchange in collaboration with Green Seed Radio (KTRB AM860).

www.greenbuildingexchange.com
Operating in Redwood City, the Green Building Exchange was created as a one-stop green business marketplace by founder Michael Schaeffer, who wanted to make the information and the process for sustainable building as accessible and affordable to consumers as conventional building. The Green Building Exchange facility offers products, services, education, networking and media, though a permanent tradeshow exhibit, a retail store for green design products, on-going classes and symposia, and state-of-the-art office and conference spaces. 

 Green Transportation 2008: Choices for the Future
Saturday, April 12th
9AM-5PM
Free tickets

Located at:
Green Building Exchange
305 Main Street
Redwood City, CA 94063

Green Transportation 2008: Choices for the Future is the first show of its kind in San Mateo County. Dedicated to accelerating the transition to a sustainable transportation.

 April 11th
Horizons in Transportation 10AM-2PM
Policymakers, fleet managers, transportation and planning experts and advocates, are invited to attend an educational event and show preview. Please contact Lindsay Germain for details.

April 17th
Vehicle Retrofit Workshop 7-8:30PM
Learn about high-efficiency plug-in hybrids and what it takes to convert your vehicle to plug-in electric. In this workshop, you will compare vehicle options and learn the basics of plug-in conversion. The workshop also outlines financial incentives and other alternative vehicle options. Co-instructed by the Electric Auto Association of Silicon Valley. For details and to register, visit http://plugIn.eventbrite.com.

Come learn what it takes to convert your vehicle. This multimedia workshop overviews the process of converting a gasoline car to an electric vehicle. You will hear tips on selecting a conversion-ready vehicle, compare many of the trade-offs of different conversion options, and receive links to resources and information. The workshop also outlines financial incentives and other alternative vehicle options.

Instructors:

Jerry Pohorsky is a Test Engineer at General Electric and President of the Silicon Valley Chapter of the Electric Auto Association.

Jerry found a shortcut and saved money by buying a used electric vehicle that needed new batteries. You can see the car here: http://www.evalbum.com/692. He now drives a factory built Toyota RAV 4 electric vehicle that is “head and shoulders” above most home conversions, though more expensive.

Doug Brentlinger is a retired machinist, formerly of Electro Automotive, a company that sells kits and parts for electric conversion projects. Doug also worked in the Quality Assurance department of Network General (now McAfee).

Doug has converted a small Dodge Rampage pickup truck from gasoline to electric power using readily available components.

His converted pickup is freeway-ready and the low-cost batteries can be recharged from any 120 volt outlet.

April 15th 

Vehicle Retrofit Workshop 

Learn what it takes to convert your vehicle to biofuel or electric. In this workshop, you will compare conversion options and learn the basics of vehicle conversion. The workshop also outlines financial incentives and other alternative vehicle options. For details and to register, visit www.greenbuildingexchange.com or RSVP to Lindsay Germain. 

:}

Sounds like a great time was had by all. I wonder if they will do it again in 2009? But when I click the Green Building Exchange I got this:  

:}

The Green Building Exchange is proud to announce that we are opening 2 new locations on the San Francisco Peninsula. We are opening a new massive facility in South San Francisco which will be our new headquarters. Our Redwood City location is moving down the street.

1 Chestnut Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080		 936 Main Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Opening September 15th Opening October 6th

You can still contact us during this transition period by phone or email:

Main Office: 650-369-6200

Eco Design Resources: 650-369-5001

info@greenbuildingexchange.com

:}

So guess I’ll email to find out. I’ll will let you know if they tell me. 

Tri Cars, Trikars, 3 Wheelers and Modified Motorcycles Come To Springfield, IL – I had hoped to have Sarah’s story to tell today

Posted on by
3

Sarah O’Shea has some kind of Tri Car. It is pink, little, a convertible and cute. I really wanted a firsthand perspective. How does it handle? Is it loud? What is the ride like? But she does not seem interested, so I will just point people to places for 3 Wheelers. The funniest and long standing site is:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6omtd/jorysquibb/id1.html

He calls himself MoonBeam and he is a hoot. He also gets 72 miles to the gallon. yikes:

How to build Moonbeam, a 100 MPG microcar

How to Build Moonbeam

1: CHOOSING THE DONOR VEHICLES                               (It takes two, remember?)        

 It’s good to think well before you choose which motorcycles or scooters to chop up for your microcar. I decided that I wanted the following characteristics: 100 miles per gallon, a four-stroke engine with water cooling; an occasional small second-passenger capacity, but usually one passenger and 6 grocery bags; no gear shifting with hand controls only; an enclosed vehicle with a heater for all-weather operation; easy interior access with lots of light; and finally, a nice looking machine, that you looked back on admiringly as you walk away. All in a budget of $2000, including the donor vehicles and 400 hours of labor. A half-time, half-year project. Ha! What an underestimation!

:}
Then he says a bunch very funny things and offers these helpful websites:

www.micromuseum.com    www.ccpc.net/~jaho/3link.html    www.3-wheelers.com   www.maxmatic   and www.rqriley.com 

The coolest one is the 3-wheelers site. They have some really cool stuff.

:}

The scooters I chose,  I completely stripped, carefully bagging and labeling all parts, and then sawed through the frame tubes right where the tube enters the rear subframe. I used a reciprocating hand power saw, commonly called a Sawzall, and kept handy a large pack of 14 tooth blades. Gasp! It was hard to destroy a beautiful red motor scooter! See photo 1, which also shows what I am calling the subframe.

II: BUILDING A STRONG MINIMAL CHASSIS

     I wanted to build a minimal frame first and test the vehicle on the road before I went too far with building the body. As you will see, my idea was to join the scooter rear end into two front ends of the same scooter.  See the ‘improvements” page for, in retrospect,  an easier way.

I bought an 8’ length of steel rectangular tube which was 2″ X 4″ in section and an eighth inch thick and sawing 45 degree angles created a “U” shaped piece of chassis. I chose 40″ inches as the car’s width, so the sides are 40″ on center and the arms extend 18″ forward, with caps welded on the open ends. This strong main frame shows in Photo 3, the first road test.

A 40″ width, with a wheelbase of about 57″, turned out to be a nice size. But when 2 adults are seat belted side-by-side, THEY NEED TO BE ON FRIENDLY TERMS! It’s better if the second passenger is a child.

I would strongly recommend that you think in terms of a 1.5 passenger vehicle. These are only 10″ tires. There are drum, not disk, brakes. Especially important, the front suspension, which mainly supports the passengers, has limited travel. Two adults going over a large pot hole might well bend something.

You might choose a larger format, but my interest was always to see how small a vehicle I could use with dignity. I might have gone to a 63″ wheelbase and used the extra length for more legroom. But remember: size makes weight. Moonbeam weighs 112 on each front wheel, and 162 on the back, for a total of 386 lbs. It accelerates quickly up to 40 MPH, then slowly on up to 52, but with two adults aboard, it does labor up steep hills.

I didn’t know how to weld, so bought a Hobart Handler “MIG” welding set with helmet, gloves, cart, etc. and had the salesman give me a crash course in welding. Before I started welding the chassis, I forced myself to spend a day practicing on all types of welds on all thickness of steel. Even so, my welds were always amateurish. The MIG welder, which uses inert gas, does make welding a lot easier.

I then welded this “U” chassis to the scooter rear sub-frame, using scrap flat 1/8″ metal gussets to strengthen all connections. On the sub-frame, I also lengthened the rear springs by 1″ to raise the height a little, and then re-installed the motor unit in the sub-frame.

To begin understanding some of the 3-wheel technical stuff, read everything in this site: www.rqriley.com/download.html Especially note all the front end geometry stuff, and the fact that: “The center of gravity should no farther than 35 percent of the wheelbase from the side-by-side wheels of a three wheeler”. This means that the driver will sit further forward than you might imagine.

To position the two front forks, I built a stand, shown in photo 2, which supports both forks at 40 inch spacing, angled together at the top 1-2 degrees (camber) and leaning back 10 degrees (caster). The motor scooter caster of 27 degrees would make steering too hard. With this wooden stand screwed with dry wall screws to the rectangular plates which  already exists on the Honda fork tubes, and which show in front of my right shoulder in Photo 1; the stand supports the forks as I eventually wanted them. I then removed the forks, bearings, tires, etc. and sawed off the level part of the round scooter frames parallel with caps on the front of the chassis I had just made, and welded them to the chassis arms. The round scooter down-tube is also an eighth inch thick, which makes for easy welding. Then I put the forks back in, cleaning and greasing the steering head bearings, removed my wooden stand and jumped merrily on the chassis to test it. Hooray! A rolling chassis.

 

III. SETTING UP THE STEERING

     I wanted to steer with handlebars using all the original Honda electrical controls, brakes, throttle, as well as the speedometer cluster. This is such a major simplification! So I welded a temporary steel box channel between the steering heads, and pivoted the old Honda handlebars in the middle. I welded flat steel ‘steering plates’ leading forward from the scooter’s forks right below the lower bearings, spacing them outward 23 degrees from straight ahead. These show well in photo 4. This would give correct “Ackerman” angles to the wheels when fully turned, the wheel on the inside of the turn needing more angle than the outer. 

     Another way to calculate this 23 degrees, is that the outer ball joint end of each radius rod, sighted straight through the lower steering bearing, should point exactly to the ‘contact patch’ the rear wheel makes with the road.  On your car, using a different tread and wheelbase length, it won’t come out 23 degrees.

Later in construction, when I fine-tuned the passenger position, I removed the crossbar mentioned above, which was too obstructive, and used a post jutting out toward the driver from the curved forward frame member.  See Photo 7.  This maximized the ease of getting in and out.  The radius rods themselves are the limiting item for legroom.

Then, after welding in the crossmember,  and reassembling the forks, with upper and lower bearings well cleaned and greased, I created adjustable “radius rods” using 3/8″ hardware store rod, which I threaded to match the spherical ball joints, called Heim fittings”,  which I bought at the local auto parts store. ( Dorman 116-203, box of 5) I carefully drilled out the plates leading forward from the forks, using a 6″ radius and 23 degrees outward spread and assembled the radius rod to two back-to-back Heim fittings on an arm from the handlebars. These fittings are mounted exactly one above the other in order not to change the toe-in length when the wheels are turned.  See Photo 7

To set the correct toe-in, I then lashed two sticks along the outside of each front tire and adjusted the rods until the separation of the sticks behind the tire was 1/8″ more than in the front of the tire. Hooray! The wheels turned smoothly together

IV: ROAD TESTING THE VEHICLE

      The beauty of this cycle-car, is that it uses so much of the wonderful engineering of the original Honda. I simply needed to reconnect the wiring harness, reattach the speedometer to the handlebars, then attach the horn, ignition switch, fuse box, and radiator to my temporary front cross member, put a battery box near the engine, and press the starter button. VROOM!

But I needed at least one brake for the road testing, at best a rear brake. So, from my local scooter repair man, I got a Honda Aero 80 rear brake cable which was long enough to go to a modified bicycle hand brake which i clamped between the left side handlebar electric cluster and the rubber hand grip. I knew I wanted left side to be the rear brake, and right to be front as on most mopeds. This allows you to blip the throttle while braking the rear wheel. Once I had a good rear brake functioning on the left side lever, I donned my warmest clothing (on Groundhog’s day here in Maine) and pushed the beast out in the weak winter sun. Three intense months of building had passed! See photo 3 for the original road test.

I had registered and insured the vehicle as a motor scooter, using the donor vehicle information,  so with new plates, I slowly circled my immediate block and gradually traveled 10 miles. The steering was far too twitchy, but otherwise, given the lack of weight, which the eventual body would provide, the car handled beautifully up to my personal limit of 40 MPH.

    It was amazing to be driving a vehicle you had created yourself.  There was little feeling of safety or creature comfort.  The wind chill was bracing.  But what a great boost to morale!  Now I could again engage in such a long-winded  and humbling project.

Back in the garage, I shortened the radius of the handlebar steering arm from 6″ to 3″ and tested the car again. This time the handling was steady and predictable and the car could still “U” turn in the width of a road. The handlebars moved a quarter circle each side of center. I now felt confident enough to begin on the body, so I removed all the stuff I had installed for the road test. You might be able to see in the picture that I was using conduit for the passenger foot support, held up by red hold-down straps. Not reccommended at 40MPH!

:}

There is soooo much more that I could add from his site. He is so funny. So earthy  and he makes one telling point. He and everyone else in the alternative ground transportation systems are building Trikes because as soon as you add the 4rth wheel they become cars and the whole world changes. Hell you could just convert your car to Natural Gas. It is real easy to do. In fact Iran is in the process of shifting every vehicle in the COUNTRY to natural gas so they can sell us expensive oil. If you do that here you have to get a permit and inspection from the EPA for every vehicle. 

 

 

 

 

:}

Weird Bird Friday – Thank God the Democrat Convention is over

Posted on by
Reply

Yes it’s true it’s TGI(WB)F again. Barack gave a great speech and then it was over. Now to the Labor Day weekend ahead. God bless the food now hand me a turkey sandwich.

whatscookingamerica.net/Foto4/CookedTurkey3.jpg

turkey.jpg

Go on a picnic! Have a Good One

Solar Aid Is Such A Cool Site – I just had to do a post on them

Posted on by
3

I have also added them on our blogroll:

http://www.solar-aid.org/

I know I have been bouncing around here from the Democrat Convention to Oil Speculators and now Africa but I ran across these folks awhile ago. I tucked them into a folder and forgot about them. So while I have the folder accidentally open…

 billboard_about.jpg

About SolarAid

Power to the people
Two of the biggest threats facing humanity today are climate change and global poverty. SolarAid helps to combat both, simply by bringing clean, renewable power to the poorest people in the world.

Fighting poverty
Right now, two billion people have no access to electricity. They rely on burning fuels such as kerosene and wood for light and heat, which is highly toxic and expensive. Having solar power improves people’s health, income and education. That’s because solar power can enable poor people to cook food, pump clean water, run fridges, light homes, schools and hospitals, farm more effectively, and much more.

Fighting climate change
Climate change is mainly due to the massive and continuing use of burning fossil fuels for energy. This has pumped vast amounts of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. At the same time, we have destroyed vast tracts of forest, which has released billions of tonnes of carbon.

By replacing carbon-emitting products with solar power, and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, particularly wood, we can alleviate global warming.

Fact:
The average kerosene lamp, used widely across the developing world, creates around a tonne of carbon over seven years. Replacing these lamps with solar lanterns will lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions.

Our history

Our vision
Our vision is to make solar energy as widely available as possible to the poorest people in developing countries, helping them bypass the need for dirty, fossil-fueled power and giving them access to all the educational, health and social services that we take for granted in the West. With two billion people in the world not having access to electricity, that’s quite a vision.

Yet we believe in being ambitious and visionary and we hope you do too. That’s because the two most important threats facing our world today are global poverty and climate change. Both are linked as the poorest countries will be hit the hardest by the effects of climate change. While we do not claim that solar energy is the magic bullet that can solve these problems single-handedly, we do believe it can play a major role, with your help.


Our origins
Although SolarAid was officially started in 2006, the thinking behind it goes back much further, to the founding of Solarcentury eight years ago by Dr Jeremy Leggett, who had worked in the oil industry in the 1980s and then became Chief Scientist at Greenpeace in the late 1980s when he became aware of the threat of climate change.

Solarcentury was set up with the vision that business could help find a solution to climate change through solar energy, so its founders wrote into its constitution that it would donate 5% of its net profit with no commercial strings attached in order to set up a charity to help the poorest communities in developing countries access solar power. Solarcentury made profit in 2006, which is why we then set up SolarAid as an independent charity in August 2006 and gathered support from a wide-range of companies, foundations and individuals, as you can read below.

SolarAid is different to your usual international charity. We join the fights against global poverty and climate change in a way not done before. And from the start, we have aimed to bring together the professionalism of the commercial sector with the values of the charity sector in order to create an organization that will bridge the gap between both. That’s why entrepreneurialism and innovation are at the heart of what we do.

Microsolar, a ground-breaking model
Our microsolar approach is pioneering. We identify entrepreneurs in developing countries, who we then train in business planning, market research and solar skills. We help them set up their solar microbusinesses so that they can build and sell solar lanterns and solar chargers for radios and mobile phones. This came out of research that we carried out that showed that the average household in a developing country spends between 10-20% of its income on kerosene for lighting, single use batteries for their radios, and charging their mobile phones. That’s a lot of money, plus kerosene smoke is toxic, single use batteries are polluting, and mobile phone chargers need access to the electric grid, which most rural areas in developing countries do not have and probably will never have.

Our microsolar model is a perfect solution to this. Our solar entrepreneurs convert kerosene lamps into solar lanterns using light emitting diodes (LEDs, which are cheaper, robust and use little energy) and build solar chargers from local materials and imported solar glass. These solar products can then fulfill much of the average household’s energy needs, leading to a substantial increase in their income because they no longer need to buy kerosene or batteries. The solar entrepreneurs make money too – a win-win situation.

Macrosolar, power for communities
Our macrosolar work involves installing larger solar systems on schools, community centres and health clinics. Barely 2% of rural populations in most African countries have access to the grid, forcing them to rely on kerosene, candles, car batteries and firewood for fuel. Schools cannot teach in the evenings; community centres cannot offer services such as educational videos or vocational training; and health clinics cannot power basic medical equipment such as vaccine fridges.

Yet a standard 300 watt system installed on the roof of a school, community centre or clinic can solve all these issues. In Uganda, for instance, we are installing a solar system on the community office of the Katine Project, a programme run by development charity AMREF and the Guardian newspaper and funded by Barclays bank (read about it on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2008/feb/28/background.development). In Malawi, we installed a 300 watt system on a community centre, the only place now with electricity for miles around. In South Africa, we installed a solar system on an orphanage. And we are starting to install systems on hundreds of schools, community centres and health clinics in Tanzania and Zambia over the next four years.

Support for SolarAid
We have been fortunate to gather far-reaching support for our SolarAid dream. Following Solarcentury’s example, a number of other companies have come on board: Scottish and Southern Energy provides funding and staff volunteers for our projects in Tanzania; Vodafone and Global Cool provide funding for our Zambia programme; Lloyds of London, through its charities trust, is helping us develop our carbon offsetting scheme; White & Case and Covington & Burling, two leading legal firms, give us pro bono advice; and the City of London, through the City Bridge Trust, supports our communications activities. Foundations have also provided vitally help, from the Big Lottery Fund’s grant for us to research setting up programmes in Tanzania and Zambia, to assistance with UK management costs from Avina Stiftung, the Sylvia Adams Trust, the Polden Puckham Foundation and others.

And crucially, we have a world-class board of trustees and advisory panel. All of them are heavily involved in our work, providing vital advice and contacts as we grow. You can read more about them here.

We launched SolarAid officially in December 2007, with a big event at City Hall in London presented by the Major of London Ken Livingstone. More than 180 people from the energy industry, NGOs, government, African embassies, foundations and others joined us for this celebration.

The future
We want to reach millions of people with solar power over the next few years. But we don’t claim that will be easy. That’s why we need your help. We need hundreds, thousands, even millions of people like you to support us regularly, each month, with whatever donation you can afford: £15 ($30) can pay for a solar lantern; £5,000 ($10,000) can pay for a solar system on a school; and if you’re a high net worth individual, £1m ($2m) can pay for a full-scale four year programme reaching tens of thousands of people in a country such as Tanzania. The need is huge, which is why we urgently need your support to make this happen.

Nor do we claim that implementing our projects will be plain sailing. As anyone who works in international development will tell you, working in a developing world environment is challenging. Basic infrastructure – roads, water, electricity – is often lacking due to few resources; the financial and legal framework – banks, the law courts, state legislation – is weak and laws can be difficult to enforce; corruption is frequent, from the grassroots level to the top of the state, making it difficult at times to operate with confidence; and industry is struggling, making it hard to source many of the materials and products needed to implement a project.

But these are also the very reasons why our work is so important and why we need your support. We want people to understand the challenges and successes of development and how solar power is a part of this. That’s why we’ve designed this website in this way, with blogs to give you the latest news straight from our projects and with the option for you to post your comments too. We want to hear what you think of our work. We want you to be part of this dream. We want you to share in our joys and our hardships.

So please, visit our project pages, click on the blogs, make a donation, and join us on this exciting adventure to bring power to the people.

:}

:}

Democrat’s Convention Goes Green – First political convention to try its hand at good Environmental Practices

Posted on by
Reply

Ok so I am a media slut for trying to grab google hits with the title of this post. Still this is a historic convention in oh so many ways.

This story cited below is actually a double steal because it is an AP story from Yahoo:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CVN_KICKOFF_CONCERT?SITE=VASTR&SECTION=ENTERTAINMENT&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-08-25-14-33-55

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_en_mu/cvn_kickoff_concert;_ylt=Ah9QOJ.F0LqqXrNw0QROAa1nhVID

 Matthews, Crow kick off Democratic convention

Matthews, playing with Tim Reynolds, was less pointed with his commentary, while Nettles played up the night’s theme of environmentalism. Denver’s mayor has worked with hotels, restaurants and organizers to make the convention a green event.

“This is the first time that a political convention of any sort has been surrounded with the awareness of environmental issues,” Nettles told The AP before playing. “So that feels like it’s on the cutting edge.”

Her bandmate Kristian Bush added: “Yeah, and regardless of what political affiliation you want to align yourself with, this is an issue. It’s real, no matter which side you decide to attack it from.”

Aside from the Dixie Chicks, it’s rare for a country group to play a high-profile Democratic Party-sponsored event. So are Nettles and Bush Democrats?

“We don’t say. We stay away,” replied Nettles, laughing. “It’s like honey, what do you want to be, a pariah? What do you want to be, crucified? It’s a good thing in this country. We don’t have to tell anybody. It’s no one’s business who we vote for.”

Among those who showed up at the event organized by well-connected environmental activist Laurie David: Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Robert Kennedy Jr

 :}

 Some people think this will be a tall order

:}

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121434145793701111.html?mod=hps_us_pageone

The Greenest Show

  

on Earth:

 

Democrats Gear

  

Up for Denver

From Organic Fanny Packs to ‘Pure’ Trash,
Party Planners Face Logistical Nightmare

By STEPHANIE SIMON
June 25, 2008; Page A1

DENVER — As the Mile High City gears up to host a Democratic bash for 50,000, organizers are discovering the perils of trying to stage a political spectacle that’s also politically correct.

Consider the fanny packs.

The host committee for the Democratic National Convention wanted 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. But they had to be made of organic cotton. By unionized labor. In the USA.

Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary conclusion: “That just doesn’t exist.”

Ditto for the baseball caps. “We have a union cap or an organic cap,” Mr. DeMasse says. “But we don’t have a union-organic offering.”

Much of the hand-wringing can be blamed on Denver’s Democratic mayor, John Hickenlooper, who challenged his party and his city to “make this the greenest convention in the history of the planet.”

Convention organizers hired the first-ever Director of Greening, longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson. Her response to the mayor’s challenge: “That terrifies me!”

After all, the last time Democrats met in Denver — to nominate William Jennings Bryan in 1908 — they dispatched horse-drawn wagons to bring snow from the Rocky Mountains to cool the meeting hall. Ms. Robinson suspected modern-day delegates would prefer air conditioning. So she quickly modified the mayor’s goal: She’d supervise “the most sustainable political convention in modern American history.”

•  Campaign dispatches in Washington Wire

• Campaign 2008: Full coverage

Now, she must pull it off.

To test whether celebratory balloons advertised as biodegradable actually will decompose, Ms. Robinson buried samples in a steaming compost heap. She hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed. The Democrats hope to pay penance for those emissions by investing in renewable energy projects.

Perhaps Ms. Robinson’s most audacious goal is to reuse, recycle or compost at least 85% of all waste generated during the convention.

:}

Others think it can’t be done. We shall see:

http://www.grist.org/news/2008/07/07/dem_convention/

Bucking Convention

Democratic convention planners struggling to meet big green goals

Posted at 10:13 AM on 07 Jul 2008

Donkey.

Planners of August’s Democratic Convention in Denver are finding that it’s just not that easy to pull off Green Director Andrea Robinson’s goal of “the most sustainable political convention in modern American history.” Only three states’ delegations have agreed to purchase carbon offsets through the convention’s “Green Delegate Challenge” program. Merchandisers despair of finding fanny packs and baseball caps that are organic and made in the U.S. by union labor. Robinson has been unsuccessful in banning bottled water at the convention center. Hotel space in Denver is in short supply, meaning many attendees will likely have to transport themselves by fuel instead of foot. And caterers are balking at what is arguably the convention committee’s most ambitious goal: meals for 40,000 people in which each plate contains 70 percent local and organic ingredients, 50 percent fruits and vegetables, nothing fried, and at “least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple and white.”

:}

Then there is my friend John Martin who thinks it’s all a JOKE. For a picture of John please see the JOKER in the last Bat Man movie. They say it was Heath Ledger’s last performance but John was his body double and he was in most of the scenes. It’s that smile mon.

http://www.thedrunkablog.blogspot.com/

Click on the August Archives and scrollllllllllll way down.  

Monday, August 11, 2008

Wealthy MD: DNC carbon program “endearing”

Doctor and delegate to the Democratic National Convention Mark Thrun on the wisdom of the DNC’s carbon credit program:

$12 bucks is all. $12 bucks and I can erase the carbon footprint I lay down during the course of the Democratic Convention. It seems so cheap.

Now if I wanted to erase my carbon footprint for a year, its gonna cost me a bit more. $324 to be exact. Given the amount I have to drive back and forth in the city, this seems an easy way to assuage my environmental guilt. . . .

Well bully for you, doc. Many people would not find it easy at all. Then this strange, question-begging, cluck-like paragraph:

I love the concept. The fact that we have repeatedly violated air standards for the city this summer makes the project even more endearing. And I am certain to participate [so you haven’t, yet?]. But I have to wonder, if buying carbon offsets is so easy, does it really do anything? I understand where the money is going. And I get the benefits of investments in lower impact energy sources.

Like broken windmills. But underneath his lib vagueness Thrun knows the truth:

Maybe just making a payment will encourage more people to ponder their own impact on the environment. After all, reading recently about real-time home electricity monitors certainly made me envious for a meter. I can easily see me turning off all the lights in the house, obsessively trying to bring the reading down. Maybe the secondary effect of just getting people to think about their own footprint makes web payoffs efficacious.

Payoffs.

Here, by the way, is the latest Green Challenge map from the DNC website:

Compare it to the map from July 28, only three days before the alleged deadline to participate in the offset program:


Truly heroic nagging, is my guess.

Update: So if the good doctor hasn’t bought his offset yet, why is Colorado’s delegation shown in the “100% participation” category? Hmmm?

Update II: The good doctor. Take me now, Jesus.

Update III: The Rocky ends it endless series on Civic Center Park by unleashing student photographers from the Art Institue of Colorado on the place. Man they’re good. Check out the slide show.

Update IV: Oops, the Rocky’s Civic Center series continues, and this is a good one, on the park’s statuary. The first pic is worth the trip.

Labels: